Obama Calls for "Conscience Clause" Rights While His Administration Destroys Existing Conscience Clause Rights
President Obama spoke at Notre Dame today, an invitation that created divisions within the Catholic Church that are beyond our scope or concern here. But in reading about the president's speech, I was reminded of how adept Obama is in saying one thing while doing just the opposite; such as claiming in his speech to support a conscience clause for health professionals on the issue of abortion (which would also apply to assisted suicide, etc.). From the story:
He called for an effort to "honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women," Obama said.
Obama plans to revise a Bush-era "conscience clause," which would cut off federal funding for hospitals and health plans that didn't allow doctors and other health-care workers to refuse to participate in care they believe conflicts with their personal or moral beliefs. Women's health advocates and abortion rights supporters say it creates a major obstacle to family planning and other treatments.
No, Obama--or at least his administration (is there a difference?) plans to revoke the Bush conscience clause, not revise it. That is hardly honoring heterodox thinkers' consciences.
And if we are going to base policies on "sound science," how about starting with the biological fact that embryos and fetuses are living human organisms? Alas, during the campaign, then Senator Obama said such determinations are above his "pay grade." (Not anymore, they're not.) Pretending that human embryos and fetuses are not "human life" (what are they, Martian?) may not resolve these contentious ethical issues, but if our policies are going to reflect "sound science," so that we can create policies based on "clear ethics," then the biological facts should quit being fudged.
Perhaps the administration will change from the radical course it has steered to date on these important matters. More likely, Obama will continue to say moderate things--to great cheering in the media--while his administration acts immoderately; as in the revocation by Obama not only of the Bush ESCR funding policy, but also, the requirement that the government fund "alternatives" to using embryos in finding pluripotent stem cells, which has been bearing great fruit in the induced pluripotent stem cell field.
So far, the president has had at least two great opportunities to steer a moderate course--first by maintaining required funding for alternatives research, and second, in maintaining formal policies that fully honor the consciences of those with whom he disagrees on human life issues--and he rejected the moderate course each time. Which brings to mind another trite old saying; talk is cheap.
Labels: President Barack Obama. Conscience Clauses. Abortion Policies.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:00 PM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
What I find disheartening is that so many people seem perfectly content to agree with what Pres. Obama says while ignoring what he does. Its like we, as a society, have forgotten what character means and the importance of "saying what you mean and doing as you say". The assault on those who hold human life to be sacred at all stages and times is unrelenting and yet unnoticed by so many who would rather believe the lies. Have we really become a people so dulled and stupified that we will ignore the reality in front of our faces in preference for an imagined dream world utopia?
Jeremy and Jessie: Yes we have, and if we hadn't, that yahoo wouldn't be in the White House. HOW could anyone have voted for him? I don't care what excuse anyone gives. He had no experience, he's obviously ambitious, and he even LOOKS like a child. He never ever could have gotten into the running at all if this country hadn't hadn't stopped being what it needs to be a long time ago. He's a demagogue and there were enough idiots in the country who were ripe for a demagogue. Don't tell me he'd be president if young people didn't have piercings and tattoos and their parents hadn't been such as to raise them to. Those who deserve to live are in peril because the damned fool and Democrat/liberal ethos has been tolerated.
The problem is that Obama always sounds so nice, it's hard not to embrace him...but as Wesley points out, he doesn't do what he says he is going to do in terms of reaching out.
He's a narcissist and a demagogue; he knows how to sound nice, though I don't think he always doe, but I don't understand how anyone couldn't see what's really there. He makes it obvious, despite himself.
My theory is that President Obama's ultimate goal is to make this country's political face totally unrecognizable from what it was during the Bush era. He's already reversed the Bush ESCR Policy, and he's evacuating Iraq. God only knows what's next!
lanthe: Truer words have seldom been spoken.
And the masses praised the Emperor as he paraded down main street in his new clothes that were not able to hide his nakedness . Those who noted his nakedness were escorted out of sight so their protests about the Emperors new clothes & obvious nakedness could not be heard.
I am hopeful that he means it on the conscience clause. I am waiting, though, to see. And I am NOT going to forget that he said it.
I am hopeful that he means it on the conscience clause. I am waiting, though, to see. And I am NOT going to forget that he said it.
Wesley: where's your rebuke to "lanthe" about her anti-Obama diatribe? Or do you give special passes to people with whom you disagree?
SAFEpres: you seem to forget that a recent President said he was going to be "a uniter, not a divider." Funny, but I didn't see anything from you criticizing his divisiveness.
History writer, try a bit of seriousness on the divisiveness of the Bush administation. The last president let Ted Kennedy write his education bill giving teachers more money than they dreamed of. He embraced his opponenets view on the border with Mexico and etc. These things cost him with his party. He also tried to give everybody something with his stem cell policy, evoking scorn from pro-lifers like myself for allowing ANY ESCR money. Bush's party is in revolt because of his willingness to get try to get along with Democrats and not defend himself. If you don't know that, get out of your Ivory tower. He's ruined the republican party by letting inferior men like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi attack him without defending himself. The Democrats decided to oppose him on every little thing to ruin his presidency for political power. My senator Harry Reid was in the lead. He was acused of being willing to lose a war for his own political power. That my friend is playing with the lives of the men and women defending our country. If you want to talk about divisiveness look in the mirror. It's phoniness to call a man divisive when his opponents opposed everything he did for the pure purpose of political power.
No president "divides" the country. We're divided because we all disagree on everything. If we were all in agreement, then every president's move would either unite the country FOR his/her policies or AGAINST them.
HW-henceforth,I am going to ignore you unless you say something relevant to the subject at hand. I, personally, am not here to bicker over what Bush or Obama said, and only intend to engage mature statements, a category that your statements falls beyond.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home